01 June 2015

Talk: Come and See (31 May 2015)

09:00 – Talk given at Church today.  Assigned topic: “Come and See,” by Elder David A. Bednar, October 2014 General Conference

Note: Because I had received several requests for a copy of my talk, and received one request to share it over the web, I will go ahead and post it at this time.  --SJR   

               The scriptures speak of at least three events, and these are representative of many others.  The first event I speak of comes to us from the book of John.  There, the Savior reaches a man by the name of Philip.  Now it came to pass that he received his own knowledge regarding the Savior’s divine role, for he finds Nathaniel and exclaims, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”  Nathaniel, perhaps with some skepticism, inquires, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”  Philip responds, “Come and see.”  Whereupon he did, and by the time we approach the end of the first chapter, Nathaniel himself exclaimed, “Thou art the son of God…the King of Israel.”
               The second event comes through the Book of Mormon.  In the book of 1 Nephi, in the 8th chapter, Lehi sees in a vision the tree of life, which is a representation of “the Love of God,” which is “the most desirable above all things,” and “most joyous to the soul.”  Lehi would go on to say that he was able to partake of the fruit of that tree, receiving joy in the process.  Afterwards, his first priority was to invite his family to partake of it also.  He didn’t say, “Come and see,” but his words carried essentially the same meaning. 
               The third event comes through the Book of Mormon also.  There is the account of a man by the name of Enos.  We know that he struggled mightily in prayer, for what appears to be many hours, for we read that his soul had hungered, and that he prayed through the day and into the night.  Now Enos had learned for himself the power of the Atonement, because His sins were forgiven him, and when this happened, he proceeded to pour out his whole soul for the welfare of his family, friends and associates.  He wanted for others what he received for himself.  In that sense, his prayers rang with the words “Come and see.”
               All three events have at least three things in common.  The first is that the central figure in each story either acted to invite others, or had prayerfully expressed a desire to invite others.  The second is that each involved—whether directly or symbolically—a profound change of heart, one that was not triggered by the persuasion of others, but by a direct act of God Himself.  And a third is that all three were referenced or outlined in a talk by Elder David A. Bednar in the October 2014 General Conference.  And it is this talk that I will be focusing my attention upon this morning. 
               Elder Bednar had directed his remarks to those who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and if there be any here who are in that category, please know that my words are also one of invitation.  Having said that, my assignment is to liken Elder Bednar’s words to ourselves as members.  The central question to be asked is: What is our role as a disciple of Jesus Christ?  More fundamentally, what attitude shall we have in our hearts as we carry out His divine commission? 
               Elder Bednar begins by explaining that “Devoted disciples of Jesus Christ have been and always will be valiant missionaries.”  Who is a valiant missionary?  You’ve heard it a number of different ways, but I will start with my own words.  It’s not just the Elders or the Sisters who happen to wear the black name tags.  Granted, their every waking moment is oriented towards the Gospel in some way, but shouldn’t that also the case with us as we endeavor to work at our profession, go to school, maintain the home, or go on with a multitude of other tasks?  So if it’s not just the Elders or the Sisters, then who is it?  The mirror provides a portion of the answer, but Elder Bednar supplies the rest: “A missionary is a follower of Christ who testifies of Him as the Redeemer and proclaims the truths of the Gospel.” 
               Now, it happens that in my profession, one of my responsibilities is to persuade others.  I take the law, and I take the facts as I get them, and I have to build arguments that are designed to persuade somebody to do something that my client wants, whether it’s a jury to find in her favor, or to get a judge to grant a motion.  It’s kinda like selling, isn’t it?
               But does the proclaiming the Gospel work that way?  I submit to you that it does not.  Listen to what Elder Bednar has to say: “When we invite you to attend church with us or to learn with the full-time missionaries, we are not trying to sell you a product. As members of the Church, we do not receive prizes or bonus points in a heavenly contest. We are not seeking simply to increase the numerical size of the Church. And most importantly, we are not attempting to coerce you to believe as we do. We are inviting you to hear the restored truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ so you can study, ponder, pray, and come to know for yourself if the things we are sharing with you are true.”
               There are two things to consider when we ponder these words.  First, our role is to invite.  It’s the “come and see” part that God asks of me, you, and each one of us.  Second, if we’re doing it right, we’re not even the ones that are doing the persuading.  For if there is one thing I am able to testify about--above or beyond anything else--it is that God is able to speak to us directly, and He is able to do his own work.  If there is a conversion, or more precisely, if there is a lasting change of heart, it’s not because of something we say or do, it’s because of something God says or does.  The whole point of passages such as Moroni 10:3-5 is to show He is capable of confirming things directly, and he is capable of answering prayers directly.  He not only does it for people like Moses, Abraham, Nephi, or Joseph Smith, Jr., but He is capable of doing it for any one of us, and I testify that he has done it for me personally. 
               Let me close by very briefly relating this experience, and in doing so, I hope it will tie everything together without causing the clock to runneth over.  When, over 20 years ago, a certain coworker felt prompted to have his daughter, then not even seven years of age, give thanks and pray for a blessing on a meal in my presence, even knowing that I was not a member of the Church at the time, or even one who treated the Christian faith very seriously, he was, in his own way leaving an invitation.  When the same coworker felt prompted to mention a Church activity to his colleagues, he was still inviting.  When, several months later, I told a general authority who presided at a stake conference, after he had asked, that my testimony of the Book of Mormon was yet a work in progress, his response was an invitation to continue studying and praying.  (At this point, I departed from my prepared remarks for a brief time in order to say that Elder Perry told me that a testimony would come to my heart, and that he proceeded to physically point his finger at my chest, even at my rib cage, as he said those words.)  And when I did receive the ultimate answer on whether the Church is true, it came in a manner entirely consistent with how he said it would.  A few of you were present at that stake conference, for it was in Franklin in 1992, and you know that the general authority I speak of was Elder L. Tom Perry.  And I recognize that it is a rare experience to receive a direct apostolic witness.  But at the end of the day, it was God Himself who set into the motion the path I would willingly follow.

               I testify that the things I have said today are true.  That all of us, myself included, have an increased vision of what it means to be a disciple of Christ, and to raise the voice of invitation to those around us, is my prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.  

09 April 2014

[Reblog] Raised Brow Tech: An Honest Concern

Raised Brow Tech: An Honest Concern: As a Mormon, this hit straight on. I stand up for my beliefs, though now I worry how that will effect my carrier in software engineering. ...

This writer responds: I'm going to concur with the concern that you published on your own blog (see link above).  I don't see this as being very far removed from posting the Family Proclamation (which, incidentally, I'm going to do here), in a public forum, such as my own timeline on Facebook, in my own blog, or over on Twitter.  The last General Conference was, I thought, pretty emphatic about the need to respect others, but doing so does not require that one adopts the views or orthodoxy of the person(s) with whom you disagree.  In my mind, it means that one acknowledges the differences, agrees to disagree on those points, and then move on.

These will continue to be challenging times, and I'm concerned that we may yet see other examples of the conduct you spoke of in the future.  It's my own prayer that we may remain faithful in the face of such challenges.  --Sandy

15 February 2014

Bar Application Questions re.: Mental Health may be Federal ADA Violation

As in many states, persons applying to take the Tennessee bar exam get are questioned about their past history of mental illness.  The Department of Justice is raising the question as to whether these questions are overly broad and ultimately violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Link: DOJ says bar officials violate ADA by asking applicants too much about their mental health

Comment: I think the DOJ is taking the right approach with this.  In looking at my own copy of the Bar Application, at least one question raises significant concern--

26 (A). Do you currently have any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to . . . a mental, emotional or nervous disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if untreated could affect, your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?  (Yes/No)  

Boy, that's awfully vague.  Now to a limited extent, I can understand questions about specific illnesses, such as about schizophrenia, that have the potential to impact one's perceptions of reality.  There are other questions regarding past alcohol or substance abuse, and I think those questions are valid as well, on the theory that a person who abused substances in the past could be at risk for such conduct in the future.  But this Question No. 26A can encompass just about anything.  A person facing an a pressing situation, such as the loss of a loved one, could likely be facing acute depression versus adjustment disorder.  A person witnessing a bad event, such as a robbery at a convenience store, could potentially face Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  A person who was abused or molested as a child: same thing.  And a significant percentage of school-aged children get diagnosed--some would argue over-diagnosed--with attention deficit disorder.  Moreover, the question asks the subject to act as the psychologist and foresee whether the condition--whether diagnosed or not--could progress to the point where it could somehow or in some way change his or her ability to practice law.

I have a concern about that.  To the extent the question encompasses the entire universe of potential or actual mental illness, whether acute or chronic, then it unfairly singles out all forms of mental illness, whether benign or serious--against all other illnesses that could change one's ability to practice law.  And here's what I mean.  A person who has untreated hypertension has a medical condition--now, notice, not a mental condition--that could affect his ability to practice law.  How?  The hypertension could lead to a stroke.  Once the stroke happens, it would be impossible to predict one's residual level of brain function.  A person who has epilepsy--a neurological disorder that is again not a mental illness--could have episodes that are temporarily overpowering, even with treatment.  Sleep apnea, if untreated, may lead to chronic problems with alertness, or in more extreme cases, residual effects from hypoxia.  And a person with diabetes may be at increased risk of cardiovascular or neurological problems as well.  Incidentally, all of these medical conditions, depending on severity, could trigger depression and/or anxiety as well.  (See also this perspective from an attorney with Asperger's Syndrome, which can trigger seemingly many wrong diagnoses.) 

Now we say that none of the people with these medical conditions should be singled out for extra scrutiny, and rightfully so.  We would say that questions about a person's medical conditions are irrelevant to the overall question about the individual's trustworthiness, fitness or overall ability to practice law.  What do we say, then, about the law student who seeks psychological aid during a moment of acute distress?  Or the PTSD example I mentioned above?  Does the individual answer "no" on the theory that the condition is now well controlled, predicting that it will stay that way well in the future, or does the person answer "yes" on the theory that even the slightest possibility of a complication or relapse requires an affirmative response, lest (s)he give a false or misleading answer?  And suppose a person was in denial about whether he or she has a mental illness.  Wouldn't this line of questioning discourage law students and prospective lawyers from seeking help on the first place, on the theory that they are now generating highly sensitive medical records for bar examiners to review?

The last question is not meant to be far-fetched.  According to the American Bar Association, lawyers are more likely to experience mental illness and even commit suicide than the general population.  In fact, as an entire profession, attorneys are #4 in a list of professions where its practitioners are most likely to commit suicide.  We need to encourage, rather than discourage, this type of aid.  Thus, bar application questions, such as No. 26A, are not part of the solution.  They are part of the problem.

The DOJ letter goes on to explain that an individual's prior behavior, rather than a mental health diagnosis or treatment, is the best predictor of future success in law practice.  Nearly all of the remaining bar application questions, in fact, relate to prior behavior in one form or another, whether it be legal misconduct, or financial trouble, or problems at work and school.  To me, this is not unreasonable.

Viewed in this way, I think the solution is clear.  For I would not propose to bar all questions regarding mental health, but only those items which have actually caused problems with conduct in the past.  If a person once had a problem with alcohol or substance addiction, there had to be a pattern of conduct consistent with the condition.  If a person had a form of schizophrenia that was serious enough to cause actual lapses in judgment, perhaps it is reasonable to explore it further.  On the flip side of the coin, if a person with Asperger's has been able to adapt to his condition--and many have--when why it is necessary to go through his medical records?  And if a person with depression sought help and is well now, it seems to be this is the very opposite of the person we want to go after.

In closing, I have no quarrel with the general proposition that applicants to a state's bar are subject to background checks and other forms of heightened scrutiny, given the trust provided to them.  But the scrutiny needs to be reasonable and adequately tailored to the need.  Our Question No. 26A seems to be neither.  --SJR